“We’re not fucking important. We’re just a crap idea.”

"I should dearly love to hear you play and sing. My brother has told me he has rarely heard anything that has gave him more pleasure."

The assumption of normative heterosexuality this rule rests upon reinforces the very social forces that create the metaphorical “closet” in the first place.

The only reason you—a stranger—would know whether they’re queer is if they are broadly, publicly out. This “rule” you’ve created is, realistically, “Only OUT queer people should tell queer stories.” This rule will always force closeted queer people to out themselves.

This rule that only OUT queer people should tell queer stories would hamper new queer talent from emerging. “Outness” is an ongoing process; not everyone is Jonathan Bailey, so there will always be a new audience to “come out to.” To avoid speculation publicity, companies will choose bigger names with more established careers.

Holding this energy forces someone to out themselves despite the risk this poses to nascent careers. Or it forces someone to constantly reinscribe themselves in the dramas of heterosexuality, cissexism, and patriarchalism to avoid “speculation.” Your rule essentially forces someone to live within a panopticon to maintain any semblance of privacy. Or, again, it forces closeted queer people to out themselves.

This rule discourages straight people from expressing creative solidarity with queer stories and voices.

If only queer people can tell queer stories, you create a reality that pigeonholes queer people into certain niches. It keeps companies from seeing queer people outside queer stories, and queer people being seen as broadly capable people, not just queers, is essential for our career mobility.

You do not know these people, you are not entitled to personal details of their life; It’s none of your fucking business. Consider something new and radical: privacy.

The answer to a question of queerness may change over a person’s lifetime.

This sort of rule also discourages exploration of identity. If the story resonates with them, why not let them tell it?

The metric should always be whether the story is told faithfully and without prejudice; having a protected class behind a story is not guaranteed to ensure this (there are plenty of homophobic gay people, for example).

You are not asking about queerness in good faith.

.

Edward Ferrars Appreciation Text Post

And now Peter lives in a world where nobody remembers him.

Someone on TikTok commented under a post about Tonks: “I hated her relationship with Remus. W*lfstar made much more sense.”

Hmmm... More sense? Really??!

How can a fanon ship built entirely on projection make “more sense” than a canon relationship that showed emotional growth, mutual sacrifice, and real consequences?

Ok, let's brake this down:

Canon Sirius never gave much thought to Remus’ well-being.

- In Prisoner of Azkaban, we learn that Sirius literally used Remus as a weapon against Snape. That wasn’t a joke. If Remus had attacked Snape, he wouldn’t just have been expelled. He could have been executed. Sirius didn’t care.

- Sirius openly wished for a full moon when he was bored in Order of the Phoenix. Remus answered him dryly, because Sirius was being inconsiderate again.

- Sirius didn’t even trust Remus during the war.

He advised James to make Peter the Secret Keeper instead, specifically because he didn’t trust Remus. He says so himself in Book 3, and he even apologizes for it later (so no, it's not a headcanon that he didn't trust him, it's canon, it's his own words).

- Sirius left Remus nothing in his will.

Not a thing. Remus was poor, homeless, grieving, and Sirius — supposedly his best friend — didn’t leave him so much as a spare room in Grimmauld Place. That doesn’t scream “deep emotional connection” to me.

And the go-to argument?

"But Sirius became an Animagus to help Remus!"

So did James. So did Peter. They were teenagers, it was exciting, and for Sirius, it was probably more about doing whatever James was doing than any grand act of loyalty. Sure, Remus saw it as a huge act of friendship, but Remus was a lonely kid with no friends. Of course he idealized them. Even JKR says in his official bio that his biggest flaw was cutting his friends far too much slack because he was afraid of losing them.

Meanwhile, Tonks:

- Lost her powers and her Patronus changed because Remus tried to protect her by pushing her away.

- Fought for his love despite prejudice, danger, and family disapproval.

- Was nearly killed multiple times because she chose to be with Remus — Bellatrix targeted her because she married him. Guess what? Yes, Tonks actually DIED because she married Remus!

- Left her newborn baby behind to go fight beside him, because she 'couldn’t bear not knowing" (her words) if he was okay.

JKR’s own canon bio for Remus confirms: he had never fallen in love before Tonks. As for Sirius? He always got the women.

And don’t get me started on fandom reaching:

• “Remus was living with Sirius!” — So were a dozen other Order members. Including Tonks.

• “Remus looked at Sirius for 40 lines!” — Because Sirius was unstable, and Remus was bracing to intervene. Which he did. Like the responsible adult he was.

Remadora is not just canon. It’s about unconditional love in the face of prejudice. About two people who chose each other even when the world said they shouldn’t.

And for the record? I’m not even a hardcore Remadora shipper. I’ve always written Remus with my OC, before Remadora was even a thing. But saying "Wolfstar makes more sense" is not only ignoring canon. It’s ignoring character dynamics, consequences, and context.

At the Meryton Assembly:

When Bingley tries to get him to dance with Elizabeth:

When he finally notices the intelligent expression of Elizabeth's fine eyes:

Hanging out with Bingley at Netherfield:

Discussing the qualities of an accomplished woman:

Finally dancing with Elizabeth at the Netherfield Ball:

To Elizabeth when she turns down his first proposal:

When she tells him he should have behaved in a more gentleman-like manner:

The next day after he's calmed down:

When he runs into Elizabeth at Pemberley:

To Miss Bingley after she insults Elizabeth at Pemberley:

When Elizabeth tells him Wickham ran off with Lydia:

As soon as he's out of sight of Elizabeth:

When he finds Wickham in London:

When Lady Catherine tells him Elizabeth wouldn't promise not to marry him:

When Elizabeth accepts his second proposal:

At his wedding:

There are whole pictures built out of skulls on some of the walls. There’s a whole miniature “city of the dead” down there. The tunnels are interspersed with those plaques which feature excerpts of romantic poetry about the fleeting nature of life, the mystery of death, etc.

The Guys of that era were already becoming like this when Paris’ medieval-cemetery-overflow-and-sinkhole problem got dire. They solved the cemetery overflow using Paris’ abundance of underground tunnels. And the guys who continued and finished the work 1000% made these aesthetic choices on purpose.

I mean, look at the entrance to the ossuary:

“Stop! This is the Empire of Death.”

It’s dramatic on purpose. It’s great.